• Colorado passed a law like that in 1992, and it was ultimately declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans. Too bad it will probably take lots of wasted time and money to bring a case against this law to get it overturned.

    Today’s trivia: one of the lawyers who contributed pro bono work for Romer v. Evans on OUR side was John Roberts (now Chief Justice of SCOTUS).

  • ArizonaDave commented on the blog post R-74 Door Hanger Debunked

    2012-10-26 08:26:14View | Delete

    I doubt that any of us are surprised by this. Our opponents, guided by Frank Schubert and NOM, blanket the market with cries of “what about the children?” and “don’t let these activists redefine marriage for all of us” about two weeks before the election EVERY SINGLE TIME.

    The problem is that unless Washington United for Marriage now puts door hangers on every door debunking these claims in language that is as clear and concise as that in this door hanger, the other side wins.

    99.9% of the people who receive this door hanger are not going to go to MarriageFactCheck.com to find out whether or not this flyer is factual.

    There is no penalty for lying and playing dirty. They do it because it works.

  • The pastor added that the woman’s actions were “not Christian behavior.”

    But slapping people who disagree with you is?

  • There’s still four weeks to go; I’m sure we’ll hear from him in one way or another, even if he isn’t aligned with PMW/NOM. I can’t believe that a turf war will really cause Rev. Hutcherson to become less homophobic or shut his mouth on the topic.

  • What’s with the empty chair? Since the Republican National Convention, will we be subjected to a slew of homemade videos using this prop for months to come? At least it gives us a way to spot wingnut videos right up front.

  • Not to in any way support their actions, but the fundraising motorcycle ride took place on Tuesday, which means that the campaign leading up to it took at least several weeks, if not months. The announcement was made on Wednesday.

    Still, this gives us an indication of how we might expect the money to flow from now on. The participants were told to make their checks out directly to the hate group, so the money never flows through WinStone. I also expect that future contributions from the Cathy family will be written on their personal checks rather than coming from WinStone or Chick-fil-A.

    I’m not surprised by any of this. Is anyone?

  • I welcome this development. It’s a step in the right direction, but there are more steps they need to take. A memo saying “we honor and respect everyone” is minimal; they need to update their policies to include sexual orientation and gender identity/expression along with age, race, etc.

    I doubt that the Cathy family nor the other bigwigs at CFA have really softened their homophobic viewpoints. Basically, they stepped into the boxing ring, got the crap punched out of them (albeit while their supporters cheered for them), and then decided they would be better off if they stayed out of the ring.

    I still won’t go to their restaurants, but for me it now moves from “boycott” to “ehhh…”. Trust has been lost and it will take a long, long time to rebuild. I still don’t patronize Cracker Barrel; they have replaced their official company policy to automatically fire gay people with a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation, but they have done absolutely nothing to win us back.

  • Bravo! Outstanding! This is the type of ad that will, hopefully, change hearts and minds.

  • Sadly, there is no penalty for cheating and lying, and that’s why they do both so abundantly.

    Even when they are found guilty of campaign finance law violations in lawsuits after the election, it doesn’t invalidate the results of the election. Besides, to the best of my knowledge (correct me if I’m wrong), even after being found guilty of breaking election laws by not revealing donors in several states, NOM still hasn’t actually released the information, and nobody has gone to jail.

  • [A]n element of their party has pitched so far to the extreme right on issues important to women, immigrants, seniors and students…

    How convenient that Gov. Crist can come up with enough other groups of disenfranchised people to list that he can spare himself the awkwardness of having to include Teh Gheys on his list.

    Their” party? Has Charlie officially left the Republican party? Freudian slip, maybe?

    In hindsight, I’m disappointed that Charlie wasn’t named to be McCain’s VP choice, which he so desperately wanted. All the gay rumors would have shot right to the surface and forced the republicans to deal with it. It would have been fun to see if the wingnuts could prevail and have him dumped or forced to withdraw, like they’ve already done with Mittens, or whether McCain would stick with him and tell them to go **** off.

    Ah, well, we had Sarah Palin inflicted on us instead. How much different the country would be today if she had remained an obscurity.

  • When we achieve marriage recognition at the federal level, it seems to me that people who have a valid marriage license from a state or country that grants licenses to same-sex couples should be entitled to all of the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage that are conferred at the federal level, even if we don’t receive those rights at the state level.

    After all, the opposite is happening now – people who live in marriage equality states get their state rights but not their federal rights.

    Unfortunately, it might take another round of court cases to get there.

  • I don’t think anyone will argue that the purpose of his trip doesn’t qualify as Senate business. $217,000 as a reimbursable “bathroom” expense is the indefensible part.

  • ArizonaDave commented on the blog post Will the Chick-fil-A ‘kiss-ins’ help or hurt?

    2012-08-03 08:52:45View | Delete

    I think the kiss-in is a terrible idea. It is not going to win over any supporters, and it will just raise the level of animosity towards gays with the type of people who make up Chick-fil-a’s clientele.

    I think flagrant displays of PDA are inappropriate in a public venue, regardless of whether it’s a same-sex or opposite-sex couple. When I go out to eat, I don’t want to see some other couple smashing face. Get a room.

    What’s the point? I see absolutely no benefit to be gained. Instead, it will most likely give us a black eye, and photos from this will become fodder for wingnut fundraising letters for months to come. Our best hope is that the media doesn’t cover it.

  • We really do have the easier road to travel here. All we have to do is boycott Chick-Fil-A. Most of the food on the grocery shelves and most of the restaurants in our communities come from corporations who support equality – they have sexual orientation and (in some cases, but not enough) gender identity and expression in their non-discrimination policies, many offer DP benefits, and many have LGBT employee resource groups. Some advertise in gay media, create gay-positive adverstising, and support gay organizations and events.

    But for all those right-wingers who lead or support those anti-gay organizations, if they really want to put their money where their mouth is (and it seems money might be one of their few remaining choices), they would have to boycott almost all food. All of these brands would be off the table (literally) for them: Kraft, General Mills, Kelloggs, Nabisco, Coca-cola, Pepsi, Starbucks, MillerCoors, Anheuser-Busch, Hershey, Ben and Jerry’s (of course!), and many, many others.

    They won’t be appreciating Chick-Fil-A only today, they will be appreciating them every day, because it’s one of the few places they have left to eat if they don’t want to be supporting equality with their food dollars.

    See this article on the Advocate’s web site for more: http://www.advocate.com/business/2012/07/20/foods-tony-perkins-cannot-eat

    As much as I disdain these people, I have enough compassion that I would never wish to see other human beings starve to death.

  • ArizonaDave commented on the blog post Your religion WILL NOT protect you from criticism

    2012-07-27 09:50:39View | Delete

    Alvin, this might just be the best article of yours I’ve read yet. It hits every nail right on the head, and it’s brilliantly and passionately written. This needs to go viral.

  • And then there’s former AZ state senator Russell Pearce, author of SB 1070, who was recalled because he was too extreme even for his heavily republican district.

    On his Facebook page, he laments that others in the theater weren’t armed too, so they could have stopped him. At least some of the other people could have tackled him.

    Had someone been prepared and armed they could have stopped this “bad” man from most of this tragedy. He was two and three feet away from folks, I understand he had to stop and reload. Where were the men of flight 93???? Someone should have stopped this man. Someone could have stopped this man.


  • Clearly, Maggie has no real experience in the corporate world, nor any idea that most modern corporations (with a few notable exceptions such as ExxonMobil and WalMart) have embraced the business case for diverse, inclusive workforces that include LGB and, in many cases, T. These companies realize that this isn’t just dabbling in “social issues” or a “culture war,” they know that it’s in their best interest from a business standpoint to stand up for equality. They DO see the connection with their “mission to serve customers, earn profits, and provide good jobs.”

    Maggie’s feeble request for them to take a neutral (i.e. no) position will fall on deaf ears, if it’s even heard at all. If these corporations are intending to state a public position against this amendment, they are certainly not going to change their mind on account of her.

    Finally, I think it’s a victory of sorts that NOM realizes that they can’t hope for an endorsement in support of the amendment, and the best they can hope for is that companies will take no position. They realize the best they can do is break even.

  • While I would certainly have been happier to have him as a supporter, Jimmie Walker seems to be more in the category of “if you don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one.”

    I’m a believer that gay marriage should be passed because the battle is not worth the war.

    As long as he is agreeable with getting marriage equality passed, I really don’t care whether he likes it or not. He’s welcome to his opinion.

    The bigger question for me is: Is he still relevant?

  • My favorite:

    Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so.

    REALLY??? The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what is constitutional or not. If not them, then who?

    Oh, I remember: The Republicans. Silly me.

  • A lot depends upon context and intent. Clearly, Melissa Harris-Perry seems extremely supportive and the interview was very positive. “Normative,” or in this case, “not normative,” doesn’t have to automatically imply good-bad or right-wrong, it can just mean “different” or “out of the ordinary.” You have to admit, a transgender person getting engaged or married is not something that happens every day, and most people, even very supportive people, have had little exposure to it. It None of this has to imply that there’s anything wrong with it or any reason not to celebrate it.

    This is a new dialogue for most people, and which words are preferable vs. which words should be avoided is new terrain for most of us. I think it’s obvious that Melissa had no intention whatsoever to offend or judge – quite the opposite. Scout and Elizabeth didn’t seem to be offended.

    August, I’m glad you pointed this out to us as a teaching moment for all of us to become more aware of the language we use. But I do think there’s very little reason to take offense here. There are many, many things in our world that are more offensive than this.

  • Load More